Crown Prince Thutmose
@thutmose.bsky.social
Ḏḥwtj-ms. Jmn-ḥtp did it.
Nothing comes from nothing, and everything is the way it is because it got that way.
Nothing comes from nothing, and everything is the way it is because it got that way.
Pinned
The duality is exactly the problem. Actually, dualism is a major global problem that rarely gets recognized, but that’s another conversation.
The US’ FPTP electoral system is set up in such a way to force a false dichotomy of two choices that are two sides of the corporate fascism coin.
The US’ FPTP electoral system is set up in such a way to force a false dichotomy of two choices that are two sides of the corporate fascism coin.
the christian duality allows them to fool themselves into thinkin they werend for that genocide cause they wanted some othert genocide But the outcome is the same. We arent asking for miore crave pissanyt opervert lies,. We wanty outcome. Right now. right god damned now youtu.be/pNVu9E8FVlA?...
Jeff Beck - Right Now - 7/19/16
YouTube video by Diablagato
youtu.be
October 3, 2026 at 1:41 PM
The duality is exactly the problem. Actually, dualism is a major global problem that rarely gets recognized, but that’s another conversation.
The US’ FPTP electoral system is set up in such a way to force a false dichotomy of two choices that are two sides of the corporate fascism coin.
The US’ FPTP electoral system is set up in such a way to force a false dichotomy of two choices that are two sides of the corporate fascism coin.
Fascinating hypothesis, violent one. Tell us more!
It's true, Doc. The ah-no-mi-ey and narcissism, not to mention the rheumatism and the eccentricism and the Great Schism and the Antidisestablishmentarianism, they hinder my "sewf-wefwective quawity"! I need the biggest bottle of snake oil you've got! And it better be under patent still!
No? Haven’t considered it? I guess the anomie and narcissism hinder that self-reflective quality.
October 2, 2026 at 9:28 PM
Fascinating hypothesis, violent one. Tell us more!
No? Haven’t considered it? I guess the anomie and narcissism hinder that self-reflective quality.
"I'm guessing that sounded smawtew when you wewe thinking about it, but have you considewed that you'we simpwy an inhewentwy viowent pewson whose wowwdview wequiwes an insititution of viowence to fowce it on othews?"
Nyehhh, tell me more, Dr. Fweud.
Nyehhh, tell me more, Dr. Fweud.
I’m guessing that sounded smarter when you were thinking about it, but have you considered that you’re simply an inherently violent person whose worldview requires an institution of violence to force it on others?
October 2, 2026 at 9:22 PM
No? Haven’t considered it? I guess the anomie and narcissism hinder that self-reflective quality.
I’m guessing that sounded smarter when you were thinking about it, but have you considered that you’re simply an inherently violent person whose worldview requires an institution of violence to force it on others?
Hoss, you do know the Maoist self-critique (but in a 21st-century fit) stuff only works if you've got a shovel and the other person is tied to a chair, right?
Ah, there it is. You’re DARVO’ing and deflecting from the question because you gravitated towards an inherently violent ideology and don’t want to self-reflect out of an avoidance of accountability.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
October 2, 2026 at 9:13 PM
I’m guessing that sounded smarter when you were thinking about it, but have you considered that you’re simply an inherently violent person whose worldview requires an institution of violence to force it on others?
Ah, there it is. You’re DARVO’ing and deflecting from the question because you gravitated towards an inherently violent ideology and don’t want to self-reflect out of an avoidance of accountability.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
October 2, 2026 at 9:06 PM
Ah, there it is. You’re DARVO’ing and deflecting from the question because you gravitated towards an inherently violent ideology and don’t want to self-reflect out of an avoidance of accountability.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
The reason you won’t answer is because your ego can’t handle that it’s true.
It’s a simple question. You misrepresented what I said, and I’m treating you like the idiot that you’re acting like until you engage with what was actually stated.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce a class hierarchy, that makes you violent.
Which part of that is false?
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce a class hierarchy, that makes you violent.
Which part of that is false?
Are u actually confuzzled or are u simply engaging in rhetorical gamesmanship to avoid serious critique?
Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? Specifically.
October 2, 2026 at 8:57 PM
It’s a simple question. You misrepresented what I said, and I’m treating you like the idiot that you’re acting like until you engage with what was actually stated.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce a class hierarchy, that makes you violent.
Which part of that is false?
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce a class hierarchy, that makes you violent.
Which part of that is false?
Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? Specifically.
"If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it's because you're inherently a violent person."
1. Yeah I'm inherently evil and incapable of goodness, very left-wing of you to say.
2. So u support that sectionalization, then?
1. Yeah I'm inherently evil and incapable of goodness, very left-wing of you to say.
2. So u support that sectionalization, then?
Private economic property rights need to violently enforced. You don’t have a system of economic exclusivity until others have been excluded.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
October 2, 2026 at 8:51 PM
Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? Specifically.
Private economic property rights need to violently enforced. You don’t have a system of economic exclusivity until others have been excluded.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
"Have you considered that individual rights need to be enforced, which is necessarily fascism? Checkmate libs, the only alternative to fascism is a society where individuals have no rights and are subsumed into a greater collective."
I tell you hwaet.
I tell you hwaet.
I don’t think most liberals believe that they can be fascist because they tend to view the state as a neutral entity rather than an imposed class hierarchy.
They often start with all those individual legal rights, but then don’t consider how those rights need to then be enforced by someone.
They often start with all those individual legal rights, but then don’t consider how those rights need to then be enforced by someone.
October 2, 2026 at 8:46 PM
Private economic property rights need to violently enforced. You don’t have a system of economic exclusivity until others have been excluded.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
If your worldview requires a violent institution to enforce sectionalization of the means of production, it’s because you’re inherently a violent person.
He and the clapping seals that liked his post effectively demonstrated my point.
His claim that liberalism can’t be fascist is disconfirmed by the existence of real world examples of liberalism that are fascist.
In this case, the neoliberalism of Pinochet’s Chile.
His claim that liberalism can’t be fascist is disconfirmed by the existence of real world examples of liberalism that are fascist.
In this case, the neoliberalism of Pinochet’s Chile.
Because our current Liberal government is all about legal rights lol.
October 2, 2026 at 5:01 PM
He and the clapping seals that liked his post effectively demonstrated my point.
His claim that liberalism can’t be fascist is disconfirmed by the existence of real world examples of liberalism that are fascist.
In this case, the neoliberalism of Pinochet’s Chile.
His claim that liberalism can’t be fascist is disconfirmed by the existence of real world examples of liberalism that are fascist.
In this case, the neoliberalism of Pinochet’s Chile.
They did qualify it with “mainstream”. It really depends on the outlet and the issue.
In Canada, the National Post, CBC, and Globe & Mail are all mainstream. I don’t think they’re particularly trustworthy when it comes to critiques of Zionism as an ideology, nor of capitalism as an economic system.
In Canada, the National Post, CBC, and Globe & Mail are all mainstream. I don’t think they’re particularly trustworthy when it comes to critiques of Zionism as an ideology, nor of capitalism as an economic system.
the funniest thing about the "we don't trust the media" people is that they will trust literally anyone else. like, if you have an image and text, they'll buy it. shaking keys at babies type logic.
I don’t trust the mainstream media, but I feel like the primary alternate model, getting the news from the posts of a 14 year-old Romanian schizophrenic shitposter named “G00n3R the Swamp Pervert,” is not necessarily a superior alternative.
October 2, 2026 at 2:36 PM
They did qualify it with “mainstream”. It really depends on the outlet and the issue.
In Canada, the National Post, CBC, and Globe & Mail are all mainstream. I don’t think they’re particularly trustworthy when it comes to critiques of Zionism as an ideology, nor of capitalism as an economic system.
In Canada, the National Post, CBC, and Globe & Mail are all mainstream. I don’t think they’re particularly trustworthy when it comes to critiques of Zionism as an ideology, nor of capitalism as an economic system.
Neoliberalism falls under liberalism.
Let’s break down the word. What’s the root morpheme of the word neoliberal?
Let’s break down the word. What’s the root morpheme of the word neoliberal?
I said liberalism and fascism are incompatible. Neoliberalism and liberalism are different things which is why they are different words
You said they’re incompatible, if I understand correctly, and I gave a counter-example of an ideology that shows that they are, in fact, very compatible.
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
October 1, 2026 at 11:03 PM
Neoliberalism falls under liberalism.
Let’s break down the word. What’s the root morpheme of the word neoliberal?
Let’s break down the word. What’s the root morpheme of the word neoliberal?
You said they’re incompatible, if I understand correctly, and I gave a counter-example of an ideology that shows that they are, in fact, very compatible.
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
Adding a modifier before fascism doesn’t mean that modifier itself is fascist. If I said something was a constitutional monarchy I couldn’t then argue that all constitutional systems are monarchies
Neoliberal fascism is very much a thing, which contradicts your claim that liberalism can’t be fascist.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
October 1, 2026 at 11:00 PM
You said they’re incompatible, if I understand correctly, and I gave a counter-example of an ideology that shows that they are, in fact, very compatible.
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
Pinochet’s Chile is a great example of neoliberalism in a fascist context. Are you denying that they were neoliberal fascists?
Neoliberal fascism is very much a thing, which contradicts your claim that liberalism can’t be fascist.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
Neoliberalism is, again, not fascism
Neoliberalism says hello. It’s almost like liberalism is built on contradictions.
October 1, 2026 at 10:51 PM
Neoliberal fascism is very much a thing, which contradicts your claim that liberalism can’t be fascist.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
Fascism is, by definition, the ideology of the fasces, or the state. Without the state, you don’t have an economy built on private ownership of the means of production.
Neoliberalism says hello. It’s almost like liberalism is built on contradictions.
Liberals can’t be fascists because liberalism and fascism are two separate and competing ideologies
I don’t think most liberals believe that they can be fascist because they tend to view the state as a neutral entity rather than an imposed class hierarchy.
They often start with all those individual legal rights, but then don’t consider how those rights need to then be enforced by someone.
They often start with all those individual legal rights, but then don’t consider how those rights need to then be enforced by someone.
October 1, 2026 at 10:41 PM
Neoliberalism says hello. It’s almost like liberalism is built on contradictions.
It just seems like state-sanctioned revenge, as one PoliSci reading put it many years ago.
End the death penalty. End it now. There is no reason for it, never.
October 1, 2026 at 3:00 AM
It just seems like state-sanctioned revenge, as one PoliSci reading put it many years ago.
To be clear, you’re saying that I voted for genocide by not voting in an election that I’m unable to vote in?
You did vote for genocide though by not voting lol
September 30, 2026 at 7:04 PM
To be clear, you’re saying that I voted for genocide by not voting in an election that I’m unable to vote in?
@boudicaqueen.bsky.social, I knew it was only a matter of time before Liberal partisans in Canada started doing the same lesser evil bullying that’s happening from centrist Democrats. I was counting on it.
Great. Since you like binary, then the options are between voting for a party with fascist tendencies or not voting for a party with fascist tendencies. Hope this helps.
September 30, 2026 at 1:29 PM
@boudicaqueen.bsky.social, I knew it was only a matter of time before Liberal partisans in Canada started doing the same lesser evil bullying that’s happening from centrist Democrats. I was counting on it.
So, who gets to define what a gentile is, and from which authority does this exclusive privilege derive?
If you're a gentile you don't get to gatekeep and define Jewishness so miss us with this.
September 29, 2026 at 5:40 PM
So, who gets to define what a gentile is, and from which authority does this exclusive privilege derive?
Horseshoe theory isn’t a thing. Egalitarianism and despotism are opposites, with completely different social relations.
The center is, by definition, closer to the right than the left.
The center is, by definition, closer to the right than the left.
Far right meets far left. Horseshoe. And Bernie is a hero in Moscow on Russian State TV.
September 29, 2026 at 3:08 PM
Horseshoe theory isn’t a thing. Egalitarianism and despotism are opposites, with completely different social relations.
The center is, by definition, closer to the right than the left.
The center is, by definition, closer to the right than the left.
He’s factually correct, though. No jurisdiction grants individual states the right to exist. It is, itself, a once upon a time counter-factual to assert that such a right exists.
Blade does tell a good fairytale.
The answer to "Does Israel have a right to exist?"
Is NO.
It was setup on stolen land given by one colonial invader to another and Genocide was their first action when they arrived.
It has NEVER had a right to exist.
Is NO.
It was setup on stolen land given by one colonial invader to another and Genocide was their first action when they arrived.
It has NEVER had a right to exist.
September 29, 2026 at 2:55 PM
He’s factually correct, though. No jurisdiction grants individual states the right to exist. It is, itself, a once upon a time counter-factual to assert that such a right exists.
“And it was such that the Centrists arose, a people neither hot nor cold, but eternally lukewarm, whose emblem was a beige flag depicting a shrug.”
September 28, 2026 at 3:24 PM
“And it was such that the Centrists arose, a people neither hot nor cold, but eternally lukewarm, whose emblem was a beige flag depicting a shrug.”
Reposted by Crown Prince Thutmose
“Those who share Wi-Fi are comrades, and shall be exalted; those who hoard bandwidth for the Right shall wander in circles, buffering eternally in darkness.”
November 18, 2025 at 10:56 PM
“Those who share Wi-Fi are comrades, and shall be exalted; those who hoard bandwidth for the Right shall wander in circles, buffering eternally in darkness.”
Reposted by Crown Prince Thutmose
“Fear not the left-wing protest in the streets, for their banners lift the weak. Cringe at the right-wing parade, for their floats crush the poor and their horses kick the children.”
November 17, 2025 at 5:04 PM
“Fear not the left-wing protest in the streets, for their banners lift the weak. Cringe at the right-wing parade, for their floats crush the poor and their horses kick the children.”
Reposted by Crown Prince Thutmose
I wanted to create a thread about a phenomenon called Semantic Drift, which describes when the meaning of a word or morpheme (the smallest unit of significance in a linguistic expression) changes its definition, referents, contexts, etc.
In a “post-truth” world, this becomes weaponized by fascists.
In a “post-truth” world, this becomes weaponized by fascists.
Semantic change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
July 24, 2025 at 8:55 PM
I wanted to create a thread about a phenomenon called Semantic Drift, which describes when the meaning of a word or morpheme (the smallest unit of significance in a linguistic expression) changes its definition, referents, contexts, etc.
In a “post-truth” world, this becomes weaponized by fascists.
In a “post-truth” world, this becomes weaponized by fascists.
The fundamental structures of capitalism and dirigism (ie. the state) both require a class hierarchy to enforce. They’re anti-egalitarian by definition.
If you want to abolish social inequality, then you need to abolish the unequal class structure.
If you want to abolish social inequality, then you need to abolish the unequal class structure.
It’s an attempt to bridge these ideas: reducing social inequality, borders, imperialism, violence, war, and state coercion, while regulating capitalism for social justice... so we don’t end up under authoritarian regimes where millions die and people live in cages
September 25, 2026 at 6:30 PM
The fundamental structures of capitalism and dirigism (ie. the state) both require a class hierarchy to enforce. They’re anti-egalitarian by definition.
If you want to abolish social inequality, then you need to abolish the unequal class structure.
If you want to abolish social inequality, then you need to abolish the unequal class structure.